Open Access Statement
The journal is an Open Access journal that allows a free unlimited access to all its contents without any restrictions upon publication to all users.
Copyright
This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribute 4.0 International License (CC BY), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author(s) and source are credited.
Article Processing Charge (APC)
The journal does not have article processing chargers (APCs)
Peer review process
Double-blind peer review.
Once a manuscript is submitted for publication, it undergoes a series of steps to ensure a smooth review and editorial process. The journal's editorial office initially checks the completeness of the files and ensures that all relevant metadata is in order. Subsequently, the manuscript is forwarded to the Chief Editor, who carefully assesses its suitability in terms of scope and quality. If deemed appropriate, the Chief Editor proceeds to send the manuscript to expert reviewers.
The reviewers diligently evaluate the manuscript and provide detailed reports on their findings. Based on the reviewers' feedback, the Editor makes one of the following recommendations: reject the manuscript, request major revisions, or request minor revisions. These recommendations aim to guide the authors towards enhancing the quality and impact of their work.
The Chief Editor maintains ultimate responsibility for the aims and scope of the journal. They are also responsible for handling appeals and addressing any other editorial issues that may arise.
By following this rigorous process, the journal ensures that each manuscript undergoes a thorough evaluation by experts in the field, leading to the publication of high-quality research that aligns with the journal's standards and objectives.
Guidelines for Reviewers
The reviewer report plays a crucial role in the manuscript evaluation process, and therefore it should provide a comprehensive critique rather than just a few brief sentences. While the journal does not require a specific structure for the reports, we strongly encourage reviewers to provide constructive feedback that helps authors improve their manuscript. The report should offer a thoughtful and analytical analysis, particularly when recommending revisions.
To ensure a productive review process, reviewers may include additional confidential comments to the editor if there are specific points they prefer not to share directly with the authors. It is important to note that accepting a paper without any comments is not allowed, as constructive feedback is essential for the authors' growth and manuscript enhancement.
While specific criteria may vary across disciplines, some core aspects that should be addressed in the reviewer report include:
By addressing these key aspects in the reviewer report, the journal aims to ensure a comprehensive evaluation of manuscripts, promote high-quality research, and provide authors with valuable feedback to enhance their work.